Nope and nope. I’d find it vaguely interesting but my faith hinges on whether or not Jesus rose from the grave, not whether or not He liked it and put a ring on it.
Not “Teacher” or “Rabbi”, but it’s just another form of “Joshua”, so by no means unique. Indeed the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with the OT book Ecclesiastes) is surtitled “The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach”, so it’s not even as if there was never another religious teacher called “Jesus”. (Of course, Christians emphatically believe that Jesus was not just “another religious teacher”.)
This couldn’t be handwaved away in Egypt. At the time, the Egyptian church was profoundly Miaphysite. Egyptians by and large rejected the dual nature formula and aggressively believed in the single nature of Christ. The more derogatory word for this is monophysitism. This was a major conflict at the time this document was written. The Coptic Church is still Miaphysite and rejects the dyophysite compromise of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
Jesus is neither an Egyptian nor a Greek name. A quick search suggests that the only time it comes up in papyri is when it refers to The Jesus.
Also, I looked at the document. The name “Jesus” is not written out, it abbreviated as IC with a macron on top. There should be no doubt that this refers to Jesus Christ.
I’ve heard a related conspiracy bandied about by those who know a great deal more than I about the early Popes. Not my opinion, but related, so I’ll relate it. Apparently several of them were more like Kings than religious leaders, and passed the office on to children or nephews. (possibly even one niece?)
Anyhoo, If Jesus had a wife, then he may also have had children, which would seriously limit the Pope’s ability to claim divine approval of a heritable title. If the title head of the church is hertable, it would obviously go to Jesus’ direct descendants, right?
So the theory goes that the church purged all reference to Jesus’ wedding, wife, and possibly children.
More significantly to my mind, it has always been the case as far as we know within Jewish society that the norm for adults was to marry - there has always (again as far as we know) been a hefty social pressure to be married.
An unmarried adult male Jew would be considered remarkable and unusual.
Wow, and everyone’s always gone around claiming that Jesus was entirely unremarkable.
Now, sure. But one of the ways Jewish populations spread from city to city in the ancient Near East was for unmarried young males to emigrate from their home towns to other cities. It would not have been all that unusual to be a wandering young man, either.
Some of the Essenes had a tradition of celibacy.
There was no “pope” for centuries after Jesus’ death. The bishop of Rome was by no means the most important figure in the church, and it took centuries for the metropolitan system of ecclesiastical hierarchy to develop.
Bishops, patriarchs, and emperors were utterly unable to suppress beliefs and practices that were literally ripping apart the early church and still remain unresolved among old churches. There is no reason to believe that the very authorities who could not wipe out Miaphysitism or Nestorianism would have done any better excising some largely unimportant piece of trivia.
It’s all speculation anyway, so it doesn’t make any difference to me. I’m sure it does to those who have to believe the Bible is the word of God and that’s it. Other ancient documents don’t matter, because God already decided they weren’t scripture.
I do think it’s healthy for believers to realize that thier beliefs can change , and the details of Jesus life aren’t crtitical to appreciating and finding meaning in his teachings.
Remarkable … for his sexual habits? Not to my knowledge. 
Certainly, but they were expressly not part of mainstream Judaism. They tended to live in seperatist communes, like Qumran.
Likewise, Jesus was “not part of mainstream Judaism”. And some of his teachings are similar to those of the Essenes. I think that is the point that Simplicio was making.
Unlike the Essenes, he appears to have lived within the mainstream Jewish community - doing normal stuff like attending weddings.
His teachings were radical to be sure, and perhaps he was influenced by the Essenes, but he certainly did not attempt to live like an Essene - in a seperatist commune, outside of mainstream society.
How genuinely “different” Jesus was from your ordinary run of the mill radical rabbi of the time is hard to assess, because of course after his death he became central to an entirely seperate religion and was deified. Assuming that he was an actual historical figure and not pure myth, of course.
Or “My wife is the church” Not sure if that would work grammatically but it would be consistent with some other things.
Having to work at your own wedding party sucks …
And I really could not find any way that his being married would affect anything about me. I really don’t care, other than I think it would have been great if he had been married. Marriages are good for providing companionship, not just legal sex. Lack of companionship is lonely, man is a social creature.
“Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. So, uh, is ok if we go to your place, baby?”
Some Essene’s lived in separatist communes, but they also lived inside other Jewish communities and in Jerusalem. At least, according to Josephus, who also has several Essenes running around his histories interacting with non-Essenes.
But in any case, my main point was just that there was at least one Jewish tradition of religious celibacy at the time. And that in a tradition that at least some evidence links to Jesus. Marriage wasn’t necessarily “the norm”.
Wouldn’t celibacy of the priesthood be much harder to support if Jesus himself were not celibate?
And wouldn’t it be funny if the next fragment was discovered and continued “my wife” with “his name is Simon.”